Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-08-23
TALH ABOUr DE PRIEST.
What the Committee Says-Mr. Cal
der Wants His Position Defued.

What the Committee Says-Mr. Cal
der Wants His Position Defiued.
The Grounds and Buildings Commit
tee met last night in the City Engineers
Office. Present: Messrs. Kendler
(chairman), Crenshaw, Snead, and Sui
livin.
After transacting some routine busi-
ncss-approving bills of labor on the
new City Hall. Sc.-the subject of Mr..
De Priests position as keeper of the
New-Reservoir Park was broached, and
Mr.. Snoad moved a reconsideration OF
Nh. De Priests appointment.
MR.. PIZZINI.
The Chairman intimatcd that he could
not entertain the motion, as there was
not full attendance of members of
the committee. Mr.. Pizzini was alb
sent.
Mr.. Snead wanted to know If Mr..
rizzini ruled the committee.
Mr.. Crenshaw :-"It seems that he
does
The Chairman further stated that Mr..
Snead could not make such motion,
for the reason that he had not voted
with the prevailing side when Mr.. DE
Priest was elected.
WAS THE ELECTION LEGAL?
Mr. Snead then went on to say that
now and heretofore, as he stated ut the
last meeting, he regarded the election
of Mr. DE Priest as illegal that the
park now virtually had two keepers
that his idea had been to employ two
laborers and put them under Mr.
Calder, instead of electing other keep
crs.
MR.. RENDLER's VIEWS.
Mr.. Kendlcr contended that Mr. De
Priests election was perfectly legal-as
much so as the keeper of any other
park in the city. If De Priest was
thrown out so should all the others bc.
He for one was sorry affairs had taken
the turn they had. They had given
him worry enough.
Nr. Crcnshaw also regarded the
action as Illegal. but refused to take
any part IN the proceedings of the COM
mittec if it acted on the case. He pro-
posed to make motion in regard 10
Mr. De Priests election at the next
meeting of the Board of Alderman.
WANTS HIS POWERS DEFINED.
City-Engineer Cutshaw, who was
present, said he had been requested by
MIR. Calder. keeper of the New reser-
vOir, to ask what his authority was re-
lative to Mr.. De Priest.
1t must be remembered that before
the election of Mr.. De Priest Mr..
Calder was keeper not only of the
reservoir, bat Of the adjoining park
also. The Water Committee paid him
81 for keeping the reservoir and the
Grounds and Buildings Committee gave
him $40 more for keeping the grounds.
This arrangement has not beer affected
by Mr.. De Priests appointment.
HE HAD 80 SECOND.
Mr. Snead moved that Mr.. Calder be
recognized as keeper Of the park, and
that Mr.. De Priest bc looked upon as
policeman. This motion failed of a Sc
cOud.
Mr.. Snead then said 4: "Well, We
ought to settle this matter some way
and let these men know how they stand.
If you don't like my motion, some OF
you make another one. Mr.. Sullivan,
what do you think about it ?"
MR.. cALDERs DUTIES LIGHT.
Mr. Sullivan replied byasking if Mr..
Calder did not have enough to do as
keeper Of the reservoir without acting
as keeper Of the grounds.
Colonel Cutshaw stated that Mr..
Calder's duties as keeper Of the reser-
voir did not take fifteen minutes Of his
time each day. He only had to raise
some gates when the reservoir got too
full, and sometimes for several days at
a time it was not necessary for him to
go near the reservoir unless he wanted
to look at the water.
Mr.. kendler thought Mr.. Calder
was almost as well paid as any officer
in the city, getting as he did over 800
a month and house to live in.
80 MOTION.
No other motion was made so, after
waiting a few minutes, the Chairman
said he would adjourn the meeting if
there was no other business before it,
as lie had to go several miles into the
country
Thus the committee adjourned, and
the City Engineers question remains
unanswered.
MR.. DE- PRIESTS ASSISTANT.
The election of an assistant to Mr..
De Priest to fill the position declined
by Mr.. Sowell, who was elected TO it,
was not taken up.
There were six applicants, but their
papers were not read.